If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The lack of assistance is not the militaries fault. They can only act as directed by the civilian commander in chief. They have plans in place for almost every situation possible. They have teams ready for almost every plan. However, the military can not act until ordered to do so. They can not enter a hostile country with out orders to do so. They can not save embassy personnel without orders to act. When the military does not act, it is not because they choose not to. It is because our elected officials did not authorize them to act.

Do not blame our military for this, blame the true culprit. The one man that was getting his full night sleep while our men were fighting for their lives.

1. Nothing is said now about the storming of the embassy in Cairo though it is the purported reason for the Benghazi attacks. I suddenly don't recall anything else being said since that day. Is it possible that the folks in the WH and State were concentrating on these? For instance, could the refusal to use the Marine Exp Unit aboard the Iwo Jima been because nobody knew which way to turn? Why hasn't the Cairo episode been mentioned except in the Benghazi talking points. For instance, why wasn't the FEST sent to Cairo either? What about the other attacks on embassies? I think that there were 4 that week.

Eric, as I recall, the Cairo embassy had been evacuated in advance of the demonstration taking place, as they had received advance warning from the Egyptian govt. So, in that case things went as planned.

Hillary (according to Hicks' testimony) had no problem giving the order for the Tripoli diplomats to evacuate their facility.

I think Bon hit the nail on the head ... they were "paralyzed" ... not what we expect of those making the life-or-death decisions. Then they tried to cover up their failure in that regard. Panetta might have very well been telling the truth ... but telling it in a way that obfuscated that they just didn't have the leadership to make the kinds of decisions needed in an emergency.

Gibson, and the people in Tripoli, were what we expect. They found an aircraft by thinking outside of the box. They put together men to at least relieve the besieged facility. The paper pushers, perhaps, should have taken a cue from those people who could put together a plan. That's what they have been trained to do as military ... to act in the face of bad odds or the unexpected.

Last edited by Gerry Clinchy; 05-12-2013 at 01:22 PM.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

1. Nothing is said now about the storming of the embassy in Cairo though it is the purported reason for the Benghazi attacks. I suddenly don't recall anything else being said since that day. Is it possible that the folks in the WH and State were concentrating on these? For instance, could the refusal to use the Marine Exp Unit aboard the Iwo Jima been because nobody knew which way to turn? Why hasn't the Cairo episode been mentioned except in the Benghazi talking points. For instance, why wasn't the FEST sent to Cairo either? What about the other attacks on embassies? I think that there were 4 that week.

2. The military in this county follows a strict concept of civilian command and control. There were likely all kinds of military options and ideas floating around but the civilians put the kibosh on these. Why haven't we heard from any of the military guys yet? I'm not saying the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs but the commanders of the Unified Combat Commands (EuCom, AfricaCom) or lower. There's a book in there someplace but we'll likely have to wait for a retirement to take place.

A book just released Tuesday (and I'm only a third through it) called Pirate Alley is by Stephan Coonts. The scenario is different but the military-civilian relationship portrayed is very correct. It shows just how screwed up things can get when you have civilians who don't care a whit about the military suddenly start micromanaging the military in a crisis.

From what I understand, the Democrats tried to get military officials involved in the hearing, but those witnesses were excluded by the Republicans on the committee. Here is an excerpt from Cummings' opening statement. I agree with him. If Issa is going to accuse our military leaders of being involved in a conspiracy, then he should give them a chance to speak for themselves. Issa demonstrates that he is among those who "don't care a whit about the military."

Mr. Chairman, if this Committee is going to suggest that General Dempsey, General Ham, and General Clapper are involved in a conspiracy of withholding military assets and then covering it up, and if this Committee is going to accuse Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen of failing to fully investigate these attacks, the least you could have done is invite these officials here today to answer these serious charges face-to-face.

I respect the witnesses who are here today to offer their testimony. But today’s hearing is not the full story. I hope we will eventually hear from our military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials. Then, I hope we can turn to the real work of this Committee, which is ensuring that the Department implements the recommendations to improve the security of our diplomatic officials serving overseas.

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

From what I understand, the Democrats tried to get military officials involved in the hearing, but those witnesses were excluded by the Republicans on the committee. Here is an excerpt from Cummings' opening statement. I agree with him. If Issa is going to accuse our military leaders of being involved in a conspiracy, then he should give them a chance to speak for themselves. Issa demonstrates that he is among those who "don't care a whit about the military."

If they REALLY want to get to the bottom of it, maybe our Commander in Chief could offer some insight on his whereabouts for the duration of the night? And why something wasn't done to help those folks? Why tiptoe through the tulips? Lets get right to the top dog...

If they REALLY want to get to the bottom of it, maybe our Commander in Chief could offer some insight on his whereabouts for the duration of the night? And why something wasn't done to help those folks? Why tiptoe through the tulips? Lets get right to the top dog...

Hard to do when the top dog has a whole administration covering his ass for every move.

Buzz, they did have Gen. Dempsey testify; presumably the top of the chain ... except for the CIC. One might have thought that getting the CJOS would have meant getting all the details available. Subsequent testimony, however, indicates that they may need to start with Gibson, and move up the chain. one link at a time.

If the CIC gave the order to do everything possible to secure the personnel under seige, then who, along the chain of command disobeyed the CIC's order? If the CIC told them to do everything possible, did that include the authorization to go into Libyan airspace? If he did meet with Panetta (and whoever else attended that meeting, presumably some military would have been involved), for a half-hour or more, then would that question not have come up in the conversation that the CIC was the only one who could authorize that? I wouldn't see this information as "classified" ... rather it is simply stating common knowledge SOP; and the question is only whether the order was given or not. Or were the people in the meeting too inexperienced to ask for the authorization they would need to take sufficient action to secure the personnel? If military personnel were included in the briefing, certainly they would have known this?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

1. The "Chiefs" had already testified. In some respects, Issa was running what lawyers call a "perjury trap". They had the Chiefs on record. Now get the other guys and see what they say. Likely Rep. Cummings knew this was the direction of the hearings and he just whated to blow some smoke. Evidenced by all the Dem cries that the Reps had voted against the budget for security. Well, first of all they didn't vote against the security budget. If they voted, it was against expanding it but there was plenty of money as evidenced by the fact the Ms. Clinton was going to try to increase the status of the Benghazi installation....with money. The enhanced security that was talked about Wed. would have cost a relative pittance. Besides, whatever the Republicans vote for WRT budget, the Senate Democrats will block the issue entirely.

2. The military guys don't ever testify unless the civilians in the chain of command allow it. When they do testify, it's usually with civilian "minders" at their side. They testified before but it was on what happended after the attacks. What we want to know is what options were discussed and why they were discarded while the attacks were on-going. If there's any indication that the hearing is going to go into this and the military/civilian decision process, watch for the roadblocks to come up. Besides, my question was on wondering what the Unified Command Commanders or lower thought the options were.

Basically, the civilian leadership at the State Dept. and the National Security Council got caught like deer in the headlights, refused to give any authorization to do anything, and now are caught. Let's remember that Ms. Clinton, when she was First Lady, held the military in complete and utter contempt. Now that's come home to roost.

I'd love to know the experience levels of the senior leadership at State that day. I doubt they'd had a crisis experience other than what color of clothes to wear to work. The smart money would have backed off, let the guys with the bullets and bombs work, and then bask in the glory. Instead, they were so worried about an election that they couldn't think straight and just plain paniced. Hardly credentials for seior leadership whether at the State Dept or the Scouts.

Pretty telling interview on Meet The Press this morning. Both Issa and Pickering were on. Pickering said that the ARB investigation had nothing to do with the statements made post attack. He also was under the impression that the names of witnesses were provided to the congressional commitee, which is apparently not the case.

Feinstein was also on the show and when asked what the administration should have done defirently, she said they (basically) should have told the truth from the beginning. She said it was so blantanly obvious that it was a terrorist attack they should have told the truth. Does this mean that if it wasn't obvious, that it would have been okay to mislead the American public? When asked why she thought they didn't, she said she didn't know because it probably wouldn't have made a difference in the election. Really?!?! Then I want to know why they lied!

The democrats keep saying that the investigation should only be concerned with how the tragedy was allowed to happen and not who was responsible for the unpreparedness. I agree that we have to make changes so that we are more prepared, but someone has to take responsibility for screwing up. All this blame shifting just confirms that our leaders are not held accountable for their actions.

I also found it interesting that Paul was quoted as saying that the actions of Clinton, during this debacle, should disqualify her from higher public office. It is my opinion that she left the State Department to distance herself from this mess and the democrats are doing everything in their power to protect her electability in 2016.

Brad, you make a good point about accountability. If people screw up and there are no consequences, then why would one expect that those in charge will be more diligent the next time?

The same thought can be applied to the fellas who took home big paychecks when taxpayers had to bail out the banks who were "too big to fail". And to the GSA fellow who had some great parties at taxpayer expense. Seems nobody has yet been held accountable for the mess known as Fast & Furious ... except the guy who blew the whistle on it. Others could probably add to the list.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.